BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

23 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 68clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,457Mumbai1,322Ahmedabad429Jaipur340Kolkata212Bangalore200Chennai161Hyderabad158Pune154Indore153Surat144Raipur129Karnataka125Chandigarh114Rajkot82Visakhapatnam47Amritsar41Lucknow38Calcutta37Nagpur34Allahabad33Guwahati32Cochin27Agra23Cuttack21Dehradun14Patna14Jabalpur14Ranchi9Jodhpur9SC5Telangana3Varanasi3Rajasthan2Panaji1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)30Section 6824Penalty19Addition to Income19Section 14818Section 271(1)11Section 27110Section 143(3)10Section 54B8Section 147

SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 70/AGR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

section 271(l)(c). Ld. CIT(A) has legally erred in confirming the penalty ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer has not specifically mentioned whether Explanation 1 (A) is applicable or Explanation 1(B). Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed by simply referring to Explanation 1. 6. Because even otherwise neither Explanation 1(A) is applicable

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

7
Natural Justice7
Unexplained Cash Credit5
ITA 6/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted based on Ground No. 4 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7/Ag/2023 – Asst Year

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted based on Ground No. 4 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7/Ag/2023 – Asst Year

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted based on Ground No. 4 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7/Ag/2023 – Asst Year

M/S VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. D.C.I.T., RANGE-5, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 349/AGR/2018[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Sept 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the firm. 15. The Assessing Officer has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of section 271

SHIVA PRESERVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 318/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Kaist, Jawantnagar, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh -206245 Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs3418D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 274Section 68

u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 31.12.2016 by the Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(5), Etawah (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the Assessee before this Tribunal by 975 days. Considering

NALANDA BUILDERS &DVELOPERS I P LTD,AGRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 142/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 2Section 271Section 271ASection 68

68 of the Income Tax Act, The penalty imposed by the AO, enhanced by the CIT (Appeals) is against the provisions of Section 271AAB(1)(b)/271AAB(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, same are liable to be cancelled. 4. That while enhancing the penalty, the CIT (Appeals) has not allowed the proper opportunity to the appellant for filing

M/S NARESH KATARE, CONTRACTOR,GWALIOR vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, GWALIOR

In the result, appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/AGR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Washim Arshad, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(l)(c) where the addition was also sustained by the Hon'ble ITAT by applying the net profit rate of 3%. The penalty so imposed was cancelled by the CIT (Appeals) and the order of CIT (Appeals) cancelling the penalty was sustained by ITAT, Agra Bench. In Assessment Year 2009-10, in the present year, the penalty

B K KESHARWANI, AGRA vs. MADHUR MITTAL, AGRA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 536/AGR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Apr 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Ld Cit(A), Who Partly Allowed

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 80C

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, ld CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s. 80C of the Act. 6. Aggrieved revenue has filed this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2,43,07,000 made

TOMAR & BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 440/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 41(1)Section 68

penalty can be levied towards disallowance of expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. (C) Addition of Rs.10,54,363/- of sundry creditors/debtors. In this regard, he submitted that the addition was made u/s. 41(1) and not u/s. 68 of the Act to invoke the provisions of section 271

K P ENTERPRISES,ETAWAH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 341/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) the Act. In the penalty order, the AO observed that the assessee firm was in the business of civil contracts and working for Government department during the period relevant to the AY 2014-15 and it filed its return of income on 26.11.2014 for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs.41,98,630/-. Subsequently

BANCO CONSTRUCTION,BANSAL KOTHI, NEHRU COLONY THATIPUR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 64/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhbanco Construction, Vs. Acit, Bansal Kothi, Nehru Faceless, Gwalior Colony, Thatipur, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabfb7336D Assessee By : Shri Anurag Singh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Anurag singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194ASection 271(1)(b)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.06.2025 by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CITA was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271

HARSH SALUJA,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 165/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 251(2)Section 44ASection 68

penalty of concealment, proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1 )(C) is initiated.” 3. In the impugned order, however, the ld. CIT(A) has found as follows: “3. 5.3 I have gone through the assessment order, submissions of the assessee and legal position in this regard. It is seen that although assesses has claimed that the cash deposits in the bank

LAKSHYA ICE & COLD STORAGE P LTD,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), ALIGARH

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/AGR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep K. Sahgal, Adv. & Sh. Utsav Sahgal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 of the Act by arbitrarily treating the genuine investment made by the shareholders in the share capital of the appellant as alleged accommodation entry, deserves to be deleted. 6. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in not providing the appellant the informations and documents/material for which specific request(s) was made. It is settled

POONAM GUPTA,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GWALIOR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 215/AGR/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of her income to the extent of the addition confirmed by ITAT of Rs.70,14,083/- u/s. 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.23,60,940/-, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). 3. Before us, though several grounds of appeal have been raised, the solitary contention of the ld. Counsel

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)1, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 260/AGR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 260/Agr/2025 only are being narrated as under : 3. At the very outset, it is noted that both these appeals were filed

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 259/AGR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 260/Agr/2025 only are being narrated as under : 3. At the very outset, it is noted that both these appeals were filed

AMIT JAIN,FIROZABAD vs. ITO-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed”

ITA 287/AGR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Learned Cit (A).

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69

271(1)(c) causing prejudice and taking away the right of the assessee to raise the issue in first appeal as and when penalty is levied. Because, while making the assessment the ‘AO’ and while sustaining 3. addition Ld. ‘CIT(A)’ made various observations/conclusions which are contrary to facts available on records. 4. Because the appellant denies liability of interest

PREM LATA VERMA ,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), ALIGARH, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 441/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 10(1)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 68 of the Act, by treating the loan advanced to M/s Raj Prem Associates (P.) Ltd. during the year under consideration as unexplained cash credits. 3. Ground No. 3: That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by upholding the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of agricultural income, without giving

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 213/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

penalty u/s 271(1) of I.T.Act, 1961 in the appellant case. 8. That the appeal as well as assessment order are against the law and facts of the case. 9. That the appellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the Grounds of Appeal either before or during the course of hearing of appeal